Argument Topic The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions Since they were d

Essay topics:

Argument Topic: The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News:
"The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been prohibited. Now local development interests are lobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. In order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built."

In this era of 'go-green', a first look at the argument seems quite convincing and anyone will aver that the local organizations should not be granted the permission to build the road thus terming it as logical and valid. However, as we go deep into the matter, we discover that the argument lacks vital evidences and points to put forth its claim. The essential points to strengthen the argument which should have been there are as follows:

The date of the article has not been mentioned and also the author is anonymous. Along with that the credibility of the West Lansburg Newspaper is also lacking. The reason why the above stats are essential is because the argument is referring to a huge span of time ranging from 1978 to 2004 and few more years which is approximately around 25 to 30 years. As a result, the above information is necessary to process the claim further.

The article suggests to disallow the local organizations from being granted the permission. The decline of the sea otter population in the neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria having a 'similar' sanctuary has been stated as the reason. How does the decline in the sea otter population relate to the decline in the number of tufted groundhog? Also, the word 'similar' doesn't mean an 'exact' replica of the West Lansburg sanctuary. Thus, the argument is relying on correlations and not concrete facts.

Moreover, neither the reason behind the decline in the number of groundhog nor that of the sea otter has been mentioned. Its just been said that since there is a decline, further activities must be stopped which sounds too orthodox in nature. The reduction of sea otters and repealing of the sanctuary status in 1978 might also turn out to be a coincident. As a result the author should have mentioned proper reasons to avoid the ambiguity.

Ancient records are suggesting that at one instance there were millions of tufted groundhogs. The argument lacks the current status of the tufted groundhogs. The probability of them being endangered even before the wetland were termed as a sanctuary in 2004 might be high. Thus, there is not particular basis on which the local developments are being denied a permission for building the road.

Finally, the reason behind the construction of the road along the edge of the wetlands is absent. The author must have mentioned the reason behind the construction of the roads to bolster his claim of denying the permission. On the contrary, the road can also turn out to be useful in maintaining the wetlands, for regular cleaning and monitoring purpose, etc.

Thus due to the overstated flaws, the argument seems to be ill-founded. However had the author mentioned the above statistics and points, then the argument would have been infallible. But as of now, the authenticity of the argument falls flat due to the insufficiency of the data provided.

Votes
Average: 8 (6 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

flaws:
Number of Paragraphs: 7 5

Three arguments are enough. But put more content for every argument. Like this:

para 1: introduction.
para 2: argument 1
para 3: argument 2
para 4: argument 3
para 5: conclusion

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 485 350
No. of Characters: 2326 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.693 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.796 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.649 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.654 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.759 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.615 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.29 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.552 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 7 5

Your language is great, the only issue is that you couldn't find the right arguments from the statement.

Don't rush to write the essay after you read the topic, a little bit think. The argument structure is like this:

para 1: introduction.
para 2: argument 1
para 3: argument 2
para 4: argument 3
para 5: conclusion

Generally:

the argument 1 -> the assumption 1 of the statement
the argument 2 -> the assumption 2 of the statement
the argument 3 -> the conclusion of the statement

It is easy to find the conclusion in the statement, but a bit harder to find those assumptions, or you may find a wrong one, or find only part of it.

Our suggestions:

1. Read a GRE book on how to argue.

2. And read outlines (hints) for arguments essays.

Seems ETS has this kind of book. Do a search you may find an e-book online free.